That one is low hanging fruit, but id only take action if the name were reported for contextual reasons. However since that name would come up alot for obvious reason, just disallow it to save consistent headache.
Ok. But that's kind of the point, and yeah the example was a bit weak. Here's a different example. There is a league called 'The Rebels'. That word is highly associated with the confederacy. With all the stuff going on today SOME might put those together and feel that the name is offensive. Should we get rid of that league name too? 98% of the people in this game are probably not offended by some of the things that offend you. Down Syndrome for example doesn't 'offend' me, although I can see how some could be offended, and I consider myself to be pretty reasonable. My point was that if we take stuff down simply because 'some' are offended by it, it will cast a pretty wide net. If you are that bothered by it or other things like it, put in a report. I'd guess if enough people put in reports there is a chance something can change.
There’s no reasonable justification for removing a league named The Rebels. You have to look at the relationship between the signifier (the lexicon) and that which is signified (the league). The Rebels is contextually appropriate and is a generic word for a group of people who are against something. Down syndrome only signifies one specific thing. Again it is that test of reasonableness. If, on the balance of probabilities (and I accept it is a judgment call, but Down Syndrome and The Rebels clearly fall either side of the line), the name is likely to cause alarm or upset, then it probably shouldn’t be allowed. Which is kind of what Mepps said. I’m well aware of the reporting process. I was only drawn into a discussion by bogus free speech arguments, and the false assumption people work from that anyone who sticks their neck out and says “this is offensive” is a sensitive snowflake. Some things are actually offensive, always have been and probably always will be. Taking the piss out of people with serious disabilities is one of them. They have it hard enough.
I know you keep saying 'reasonable' but that is a subjective term. There are a lot of people 'alarmed or upset' over extremely small offenses. Besides, you are also focusing on one league name (apparently), and if you are talking about this kind of change it will absolutely apply to more than your one example. Also, I'm not saying it's a free speech issue. This is a privately owned game. The devs can whack whatever name or character they want at will, that's why I'm suggesting using reporting. An overwhelming majority of people reporting would likely get the result you want. But to think that if just a single person or handful of people will be offended and then the thing that offended them should just be gone...that's where we'll get into trouble. I can think of 50 user names that I find more offensive than 'Down Syndrome' and probably a few league names if I cared to ponder it. I don't though, because there is virtually no name or character in this game that would offend me to a level where I'd need to report things or get in some level of dismay. But I'm hard to offend...others are much easier to offend...some are hair trigger. Who gets to decide what is a reasonable level of offense? The devs? The community? If it's the devs they already made their decision....the name passed the filter when created. If it's the community, then A) we are having that discussion right now and B) reporting is the another option. BTW... for the record, I have a cousin with DS and the company I work for is a big supporter of GiGis Playhouse...an achievement center for people with DS. I have every right to be as offended as anyone...but I don't find it offensive. I think the discussion is at a natural ending point for me and will leave it alone after this. Always glad to have a lively discussion though. I'll keep watching the thread to see where it goes.
Biggest issue i see on both sides of reading all these examples an counters to them is the use of subjective terms as non-subjective terms. Terms like “reasonable” and such are the very definition of subjective an theres the flaw. Reasonable to one person is different than reasonable to another and thats subjective. Thats the whole issue.
Nah i dont want the name, heck ive had the same name for probably 5 years now n i dont really do ults.. so this really wasnt my problem, maybe it woulda been a cool league name or sum but not anything i would ever run with. But i took issue with this because its sorta like that tom cruise movie where they are arresting people for crimes before they are being committed. Heck even if someone did their name theRAPIST the name is still therapists ... so why not just ban those characters after they’ve been reported, not that I understand why you would do so, because no matter how u read it the name says therapist!! In my greater opinion, my own politics aside I believe that out world is becoming,,, weaker i guess,,, because good men & woman are being forced to sit on their hands because their opinions dont line up with the morals of this weak new world. We see it all over in the world even here on the forums This is a community forums, but have you ever realized how bad someone gets it if they have a opinion outside of the common one, They get cancelled. And thats not how a GOOD efficient community should work. so if people like us who really have no intentions on using that name Dont speak up or out about further monetization even though we dont want it, the devs will think that everyone is on the same page and implement it. Trust me, we arent to far off of people crying about the story lines being used in the game, i was shocked that there was no outcry about the gas mask in the world war 2 dlc, i see a ton of characters in game w naz inspired outfits since then ( something i dont agree with, but I understand that you have the right to do you) .. its 2020, the sad truth is the criers will Probably win when the tears come out, but guys dont go out without a fight. Id vote no further restrictions.
What's getting censored here is the word in therapist after "the." There's an SNL skit about this. Unfortunately, tools are imperfect and people are awful, so sometimes completely okay things will get censored and sometimes completely not-okay things won't. Edit: As pointed out earlier in the thread.
Right and Wrong are also subjective but we have managed to create some pretty ‘reasonable’ laws to protect citizens of a given nation. There is nothing inherently wrong (or right) about well, anything, stealing, killing and worse, it’s all a matter of opinion, it’s all subjective. Morality is subjective. Refusing to give something value simply because it’s subjective is a slippery slope (see what I did there). Except that’s nonsense because slippery slope is in itself a fallacy, if you want to say something is a slippery slope you need to demonstrate it rather than merely saying it is and expecting people to believe it, it’s just an argument tactic, over used and misunderstood. I don’t need to use the term slippery slope I just used it for funsies, my first paragraph already explains why it’s a ‘slippery slope’ without having to use that pesky little phrase as a lazy short hand, or worse a social conditioning tool. Quick everyone fear the slippery slope, nothing to see here just a slippery slope, don’t try to analyse though just trust me when I say it’s a slippery slope, don’t look too hard or you might fall down the slippery slope!!!
Strictly speaking it is a subjective term, but the way I have used the term reasonable is in entering the mind of the person making the judgment. That person should be making a decision about others and the effect something is likely to have on them. Moving away from this topic, in UK employment law for example, the burden of proof for taking action such as dismissing an employee for gross misconduct is a lower threshold than criminal law. In criminal law, proof has to be established ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. In employment law an employer simply needs ‘reasonable belief’ that an employee did something. So I don’t accept your dismissing of reasonableness as a term. If it functions in employment law it can function in moderation decisions in a game. Your issue is you don’t like any form of censorship so you’re simply looking for ways to dismantle concepts surrounding fair decision making. It’s a very convenient position to hold when effectively you’re in favour of anarchy or a simple absence of decision making.
And it's absolutely hilarious! I remember when the filter was new and we had to discuss "Richard" Grayson instead of Dick Grayson.
I see we don't have anyone here who either has studied law or worked at a law firm. A "reasonable person" is in fact a term of art in U.S. law. https://www.triallaw1.com/what-is-considered-a-reasonable-person-when-it-comes-to-negligence https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_person https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/reasonable person https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable Person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person Etc., etc.
Call me crazy, but I do this weird thing where I take such action as I see fit in regard to a given situation. Telling other people what they "shouldn't" be offended by isn't reasonable. Whether an authority agrees or not is another matter. There are rules in the TOS about appropriate naming. People who violate those rules shouldn't be surprised when the rules are enforced, however erratically or inconsistently.
To those that think "The world is becoming softer" - Even though MINES (and from reading the thread a few others) tolerance level is high for some things that doesn't negate the fact that we should navigate life (and GAMING) with consideration for others. I think we ALL play this game (and other games) to get away from it all. We all have friends / associates that we ALSO communicate with in the game. When we "Get away from it all" to ME it means that the environment we go to to relax...to play...shouldn't bring the world with it - AT LEAST with consideration to Player Names and League Names... As for MUSIC? I've listened to just about EVERYTHING out there when I've joined groups for raids....doesn't bother me at all even though I prefer to listen to other stuff - namely Gospel, Smooth Jazz, Old School rock and Rhythm and Blues. My ONLY thing with folks playing music in the background is if it's too loud.
This is like saying that laws shouldn't exist because deciding whether or not there has been a violation is subjective and that laws can be "weaponized." Oh, the suffering! In both cases, it turns out there are actually systems with people that actually enforce the rules, whether it's police of some sort or devs/community managers in a game. It turns out that it doesn't matter what you think when you're arrested, or banned, or name-changed. In both cases, it is a necessity to rely on the authorities to make good decisions and if we don't agree with those decisions, we can appeal or lump it. All this "oh, it can be used against you" is only true if you break the rules as decided by DCUO. Will all their decisions always be perfectly just, or please you? No. But it's a system run by humans; it's not the anarchy of people all getting to rule subjectively that you describe. The situation you describe would be a case where any player can veto another person's name. It turns out that this is not the case! Other people can decide your game name is offensive, whether you like it or not. They can report the name or not. The devs/managers/support will then make a decision. If you don't like the decision, you'll have to lump it. Life is suffering. It's always remarkable when people argue that they have a right to be offensive and aren't subject to rules against being offensive, because reasons. It turns out that one can easily solve this problem! The miracle answer: don't pick offensive names. Yes, as decided by other people judging what's "offensive." Just like other people decide whether you violated the law or not, regardless of whether you feel it was a just decision. Don't like or agree with decisions enforced against you? See "life is suffering." I dunno about you, but I dislike all sorts of legal restrictions. But I'm not going to get far arguing that all interpretation of law is "subjective" and therefore we should have no laws.
In a private game? So what? It's not a shock that people get to set the rules on their own property. What alternative do you suggest? A law mandating that games aren't allowed to set their own rules? Or what? Governmental suppression of free speech is a violation of the First Amendment in the U.S. Private people's enforcement of their own rules as regards their own property? Nope. That's itself the First Amendment in action: we all have the right to enforce "censorship" as regards our own property, such as a website. Or do I have a right to start screaming obscenities at you, say, if I'm at a party in your living room? Can I complain that you're "censoring" me?
You're claiming that Dimensional Ink has no right to police their message boards or game? That it's "a very bad idea" that people get to set rules for their own property? What do you propose as an alternative to "people legally get to control what is said on their private property"? This notion that all player names are subject to veto by any random player simply isn't remotely true. Why are you pretending otherwise? How is it a "very bad idea" that I don't get to tell you what rules you set in your own house?
So what's your complaint? How are your opinions about what is "right" or "wrong" (according to what standard?) relevant? You've just agree that DI gets to set community guidelines and enforce them. If people want to report other people, they can, and you acknowledge this. "wrong as a whole" has nothing to do with anything. Nobody's cited "wrong" or "right" except you, and what your subjective opinion is about what's "wrong" with the world isn't relevant here. So what's your complaint? That you don't like the results of other people's decisions sometimes? No offense intended, but we all sometimes don't agree with other people's decisions. SO WHAT? If there's something you want DCUO to do or change, I have no idea from what you have written as to what that might be.
I'm just glad you set your "own politics aside." Except that you didn't remotely. What does any of this have to do with gameplay?
Settings/UI/Show player overhead league names. Toggle never show! It’ll remove your league name from sight on your own screen. But also remove others. Sorted! If “offensive” league names are of concern too you. Don’t ever venture into trade or any private tabs.
Agreed, im not dismissing the term, im dismissing the term as applied. The application being used repeatedly in this threas suggest reasonable = proof and it doesnt. That why way back i cited “beyond reasonable doubt”. Its an innocent until proven guilty thing. One person or a group being offended by something is not PROOF of wrongdoing as offencie is subjective and if i (Or another group) are not offended then that subjective opinion is equally valuable. Level of outcry or level of offendedness (thats not a word im sure haha) is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof an context is needed. When one becomes offended or decides to take offence they are infering motive absent proof. Thats all im saying. I will gladly stand with anyone and fight for something to be deemed wrong. I need the context and i need the facts though BEFORE i can “pick a side”. In the OP’s original example, I sympathize an suggested they report it if they wish and move on. I reserve my judgement on that specific example personally because there no proof of wrongdoing (hurt feelings is not proof, it is just the result of how each of us individually interpret it), no context has been provided. its an assumption that its malicious and to me, how an individual feels about it is not enough”. To those wanting the example of why this is important...... If it were you being attacked and censored and for ed to change your name etc you’d sing a different tune. Anyone can choose to be offended at any moment for any reason and thats the flaw and why theres a governing body In life an in our example in this game. @mepps has commented at least 2x and he suggested as well to report it and let them decide. That should be good enough IMO
